On Friday, sources in Benghazi during the attack on the U.S. consulate said that Central Intelligence Agency operatives twice asked for permission to help Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff, and twice were told to 'stand down' -- while a later request for military backup was denied, according to a Fox News Channel alert by Megyn Kelly.

But, during a U.S. Defense Department press conference on Wednesday, when reporters asked about the U.S. failure to respond to a terrorist attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made short shrift of the confusing -- some say deliberately misleading -- White House statements over the last several weeks.

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were viciously attacked and murdered during an attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, and began at 10 p.m., Libyan time, at the consulate, which attackers set afire, and spread to the nearby annex during the course of six or more hours, according to several Examiner reports.

If you recall, there was a similar deflector zone put up for His Excellency during the Ben Ladin raid. The go order was given by the CIA or Defense chief while his excellency was on the golf course. That is why he appears in the situation room in a golf jacket as a mere spectator once the mission was on the way (actually completed). Same thing here, he was above the fray and now denying any knowledge. Perhaps if he had an apple rather than a blackberry he would have known more (extreme sarcasm). This guy views his office as one of constant aggitation, either for votes or for unrest. I hope he is sent packing on Nov 6th. The presidential pardon machine will be running full time to put those treasonous aids, czars and advisors totally out of the reach of the justice they deserve.

5
posted on 10/27/2012 6:18:14 AM PDT
by Mouton
(Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)

Be it Leon Panetta, Hilary Clinton or whoever, you cannot transform lowlife Democratic politicians into statesmen any more that you can turn lowlife Democrat political operative such as Chris Matthews or George Stephanopolis into journalists.

Clintonflunky Leon Panetta is the logical choice for fall guy here. He was previously turtled to the position of CIA director, where he could have been easily plinked off if anything had gone wrong, like the bin Laden hit.
Although Panetta has had a long and broad career in public service, it seems to have been lived in reverse from early merit in the Army and then the Republican party, to centrism (a hash of disconnected views) to Democrat party to Clinton inner circle where up is down.
Panetta is an empty vessel who unearned his post long ago. He may now regarded as useful.

I’m still somewhat surprised no one in the media has asked the admin, or digged further as to why they hired this British security company, who supplied them with LOCAL agents... hint, hint. The hiring of locals was no accident, we’ve seen this work so well in Afghanistan... it’s part of our foreign policy mandate which wrongly and prematurely returns control and responsibility to regional authority.
Yet no one in the media has asked the admin to explain this naive policy.

The presidential pardon machine will be running full time to put those treasonous aids, czars and advisors totally out of the reach of the justice they deserve.

Somehow that must not happen. These traitors must be punished publicly in a way that will dissuade any who might harbor similar traitorous plans in the future. For those opposed to capital punishment, the traditional punishment for treason, I suggest we strip Gitmo bare of all amenities and install cameras that citizens can tune into and watch these traitors slowly fade away. Feed them what they need to survive, cloth them in red jumpsuits, forbid any form of entertainment. They should probably have solitary cells so they don’t entertain each other. Just let them rot and we can watch if we so desire or pray for them if we are so inclined. Whatever, they must be punished and banished from seats of influence. Every last one of them.

Long ago I was a SEAL officer and I attended many joint and combined operational planning meetings in the USA, abroad, and on ships at sea. This type of rescue mission is called a “NEO” operation, for Non-combatant Evacuation Operation. Every embassy and consulate has and practices all kinds of emergency evac plans, in concert with the US military.

For example, Marines and SEALs practice NEO ops prior to deploying on every float, as a VERY high priority mission. They involve full dress-rehearsals, with civilian role players, helos, landing craft, rounding up stranded stragglers, opfor ambushes, role-playing “angry mobs,” fighting your way to LZs or even beaches while protecting a gaggle of civilians down to babies etc. Conducting successful NEO ops is a TOP TOP TOP military and state department mission priority. I cannot emphasize this enough. NEO ops are planned and practiced over and over and over.

When the alarm goes off worldwide that an embassy or consulate is being attacked, the entire U.S. military swings into rescue mode, without waiting for any orders from the White House. The military does all of the operational planning and begins to execute the rescue op.

The one thing they CAN’T do is cross an international border without permission from POTUS. So the US Military will be inbound full-steam-ahead to make the rescue, and all they need from POTUS is a “proceed” order. In this case, they got a “stand down” instead.

This is at the POTUS level, it is not a decision taken at State. State and the military (JCS) should be in the Situation Room with POTUS soon after a critical incident like this begins, so all decisions can be made in real time. (I have heard nowhere that POTUS went into the Situation Room at all. Apparently he went to the Oval Office briefly, but not down to the Situation Room, where the “war planning” screens, full staffs and commo tools are all located for dealing with a major crisis.)

But if POTUS punts after a brief Oval Office meeting with Dempsey and Hillary and goes upstairs to the family quarters....the stranded Americans will die.

Only POTUS can give the order to cross international borders. Only POTUS can allow US warplanes to give air support to Americans battling on the ground in a foreign country. If POTUS makes himself unavailable, the Americans will die.

Even the VEEP or Secretary of State cannot make that call. The VEEP can only do it if the POTUS is determined to be medically unable to perform his functions. If the POTUS goes upstairs and turns off his phone, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Nothing. And the besieged Americans will die.

On Friday an anonymous Pentagon insider (”Doug”) called into Rush with a lot of new details about this disgraceful fiasco. But what we really need now is for a high-ranking officer with insider knowledge to go public, risk his pension and career, and tell the truth.

The blame for this humiliating and shameful national disgrace is pointing directly at the POTUS, and America needs to know why the inbound rescue operation was aborted.

The State Department flew a World War Two era propellor driven and unarmed DC-3 into the Benghazi airport during this fight. But Panetta and the generals were afraid to send armed, military jets with the latest technology to Benghazi? What an incredible lie.

13
posted on 10/27/2012 7:15:21 AM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

To continue...Panetta may now be useful to Obama as a fall guy for Benghazi, but only if Hillary complies, and who knows what Panetta has on her. In fact, they’re probably all arranged in a MAD scenario, mutually assured destruction if anyone strikes anyone. Obama, Clinton, Biden, Panetta — they all stand on a necropolis of shared secrets, and they’re all locked into fear of one another.

Was what they were doing likely the province of the CIA? Most definitely.

Had people, including Stevens, raised alarm bells about the lack of security? Yup!

Was the CIA looking in on outright incompetence, while literally within earshot of rifle fire? Yes!

This all display Obamas ideology, long held paranoia and bias world view. Im sure Obama and his people thought what Stevens was doing was sexy, because it was risky. Of coarse, a leftist cant trust rank and file CIA, right? The CIA killed Che, Obamas hero, Obama is the self styled Che of the new Islamic caliphate.

Again, you cant trust the CIA, that is until your getting your ass shot off in a third world hell hole and your leftist party friends leave you for dead.

Stevens and Smith were expendable to Obama, but they werent expendable to Woods and Doherty.

The big point on Benghazi dereliction of duty - even if POTUS and SECDEF are New Left, they would not order stand down on rescuing an Ambassador. Even someone faking their roles would go ahead and give the approval. It’s not a question of “competence”, they just have to say yes and the military just does their job. Much like the UBL kill - which they DID do.

No, in this case, there waa a stand down. There has to be a motivation for that. What is the motivation for everyone in the room to desire a stand down ? There has to be a reason. They would not just stare at the video and go home like it was boring TV.

On the other hand, the order to start the rescue op would have been instinctful for any rational American. You would ask the military what the options were and what they recommended, perhaps. But you would not want to waste time, you’d give an order fairly quickly unless there was some big concern; seeing as how the military knows what they’re doing, a civilian leader will usually just defer to their advice. Do I know more than special ops professionals that have been in the business for 20 years and are the best of the best ?

We have not heard that the military commanders offered recommendations which the President chose to not pursue.

Instead, we hear the situation room and Cabinet members watching and presumably thinking. About what ? What would THEY be CONSIDERING ?

And, of course, anyway it’s not up to them.

The request goes to the situation room and directly to POTUS.

So were the Cabinet members and high-level advisers and military talking to POTUS ? What were they talking about ?

The would have to know that they were looking more guilty of dereliction of duty by the minute as POTUS hesitated to authorize rescue of POTUS’s personal representative, a U.S. Ambassador.

What is normally done is a special ops team is sent in and they find out whether the Ambassador is alive or dead and they retrieve him either way. Watching it on video and having discussions does not save anyone and it wastes vital time.

What was the reason for hesitation and consideration and conversation ? Why would POTUS not immediately say ok, git’er done, where do I sign, let’s do this thing. Tell me what you need. Give me status updates as to how it’s going.

POTUS had a reason to stand down his forces. He certainly did not flip a coin - such decisions are made for reasons.

His forces would have tried to effect a rescue. They might fail, but they just might succeed. POTUS did not know for sure that his Ambassador was dead or alive. Not having the rescue gives Ambassador zero chance for survival. Having the rescue gives Ambassador some chance for survival.

POTUS, ergo, did not want the rescue to happen, otherwise he would have chosen “some chance for survival” instead of “no chance for survival” for the Ambassador.

Why ? Why would POTUS not want the rescue of the Ambassador to happen ?

A dead Ambassador would not benefit POTUS at all.

A rescued Ambassador would make POTUS look like a hero. If POTUS was PURELY political, this would have caused POTUS to choose to do the rescue. Doing it and failing would be better politically than doing nothing. Doing it and succeeding would be VERY politically rewarding.

The one thing they CANT do is cross an international border without permission from POTUS. So the US Military will be inbound full-steam-ahead to make the rescue, and all they need from POTUS is a proceed order.

I have been saying this for a couple of weeks now. Even before the Col. Hunt interview came out. I didn't serve and I don't know squat about the military or gov protocol. It just seemed self-evident to me. What could be a bigger emergency than this? The national security implications are obvious. The foreign relations implications are obvious.

This is so much more than turning our backs on 41 people who work for us in a high risk environment. As if that's not bad enough. This sends a message to the world that the U.S. is weak and cowardly and duplicitous beyond measure. Not only does this make our enemies believe we are weak it tells all nations that we can't be trusted. If the POTUS would do this to his own ambassadors what deceit and treachery would be beyond him?

Apparently he went to the Oval Office briefly, but not down to the Situation Room, where the war planning screens, full staffs and commo tools are all located for dealing with a major crisis.)

Who, with all of that available to them, could possibly not go to see and hear all that they could. Just out of simple curiosity. Even if you had no authority to do anything but observe how could anyone tear themselves away from that? But a president could find that uninteresting? He's a sociopath.

If the President truly has to be on top of all this stuff minute by minute as it unfolds, if he can’t tell them in advance that they have his okay to do thus-and-such, well we do have a problem here, Houston.

29
posted on 10/27/2012 1:32:20 PM PDT
by HiTech RedNeck
(cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)

The only thing I’d wonder is, the President is not a robot, even he has to eventually hit the hay (although if I’d been in this spot, I’d have called off Los Vegas and the View and been on top of it as long as I could endure). So unless he and the Veep do shifts, how do things proceed once the President must crash? Doesn’t the President have the right to okay certain things in advance?

30
posted on 10/27/2012 1:34:48 PM PDT
by HiTech RedNeck
(cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.